The people’s views on the Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [Committee Report]

The people’s views on the Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [Committee Report]

 HON. DR. ENERGY MUTODI: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I will present the report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice Legal and Parliamentary Affairs with respect to the public hearings which were carried out in connection with the Administration of Estates Bill.

Introduction

Mr. Speaker Sir, Section 141 of the Constitution requires Parliament to engage the general members of the public in its legislative processes and ensure that all interested parties are consulted about Bills being considered by Parliament. In fulfillment of this constitutional obligation, Parliament, through the Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs together with the Thematic Committee of Human Rights held public consultations on the Administration of Estates Amendment Bill to gather the views of the people from the 6^th to the 11^th of May 2024.

The Bill which was gazetted on the 1st of March 2024 seeks to amend the Administration of Estates Act to improve the efficiency and independence of the Office of the Master of the High Court, ultimately aiming for a smoother and more streamlined administration process.

Background to the Bill

The introduction of the Bill stems from a desire to address shortcomings in the current system. This Bill proposes a significant reform by establishing a new, dedicated part that introduces a Board consisting of 9 members. This aims to empower the Office with greater autonomy and enhance its administrative efficiency. This transformation will ultimately enable the Office to serve the people of Zimbabwe in a more streamlined and decentralized manner, ensuring a smoother and more accessible process for estates administration.

Methodology

In partnership with SADC Parliamentary Forum, the Committee was split into two teams covering all the country’s 10 provinces making use of 10 venues. Team A covered Mashonaland West, Midlands, Bulawayo, Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South while Team B conducted public hearings in Mashonaland Central, Harare, Mashonaland East, Manicaland and Masvingo. Public hearings were conducted to gather the views from the general members of the public. The Committee also received written submissions from various stakeholders.

Overview of the Consultations

The Committee managed to reach a total of 866 people, with 56.1% men and 44.4% women together with 1.8% of persons with disability. There was low turnout in some places which may be attributed to low willingness of the public to participate during such consultations. However, the Committee managed to get very insightful contributions. The Committee considered and deliberated on the submissions gathered to develop this comprehensive report.

General Submissions

The general public welcomed the Bill as they implored Parliament to continue supporting widows, widowers and orphans. Moreover, the public pleaded for extensive awareness campaigns regarding the mandate of the office of the Master as well as decentralization of the office to all districts to ensure protection of vulnerable groups in cases of inheritance.

Specific Submissions

 Memorandum of the Bill

Majority of the people who contributed towards this Bill applauded Government’s efforts towards improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Office of the Master. However, some raised concerns that it is not clear how taking the Office of the Master out of the Judicial Service Commission will improve its efficiency since the duties of the office will still remain the same. It was further submitted that the Bill does not have any provisions suggesting that the new Board will be any better than the Judicial Service Commission. Clause 3: Office of the Master 3: Name of the Office Veritas highlighted that according to the Bill the Office will continue to be called the Office of the Master of the High Court whilst High Court will no longer have any real connection with the Office. As such, it was their opinion that when the Bill becomes law, the office should be given another name.

Composition of the Board

Concerns were raised over the composition of the Board being established. Some members of the public submitted that, according to the contents of the Bill, there will be no Judge on the Supervisory Board, though the Chairperson will have to be qualified for appointment as a Judge. It was also submitted that the Bill should clearly state a single figure number of women to be appointed to the Board. Furthermore, it was submitted that the composition of the Board should also take into consideration youth and disability representation.

Independence of the Board.

It was submitted that this Clause provides for the Board to be independent except for the Minister’s power to give it policy directives. Some members welcomed this provision and further submitted that ministerial powers under other statutes should be limited in a similar fashion.

Funds of the Master’s Office

Some members of the public submitted that the Office’s running expenses are most unlikely to be funded by donors, so to meet those expenses the Office will probably continue to rely on fees, charges and fiscus appropriations. It was their opinion that, if the intention of the Bill is to make the Office self-funding, then chances are that the office will have to increase its fees and charges. Since the persons who ultimately have to pay those fees and charges are the beneficiaries of deceased estates, mostly widows and orphans the burden of maintaining the Office may fall on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The public therefore recommended for the reduction of Master’s fees and charges.

(iii). Clause 4: Powers of the Board and the Minister.  It was highlighted that there are some anomalies in the Bill regarding the powers of the Board as provided for by section 4B (1) and the powers of the Minister under section 132 of the Administration of Estates Act. It was submitted that according to the Bill, the Board will be responsible for determining the policies and principles under which the Office is administered and supervised yet the Minister will retain power under section 132 of the Act to make regulations for the management and good conduct of the Master’s Office without even consulting the Board. It was therefore submitted that if this anomaly is left uncorrected it will cause confusion and conflict.

Committee Observations

The Committee observed the following:

(i) The public was in support of the amendments being proposed by the Bill as they seek to improve the efficiency of the office of the Master of the High Court.  (ii) The public raised concerns over the number of women in the Board 8.

Committee Recommendations

 The Committee therefore recommends the following:

(i) The Bill should be passed by both Houses taking into consideration the submissions from the public

(ii) That the number of women in the Board be 4 The Board should consist of 1 person with disability, 1 youth male representative and 1 youth female representative

Conclusion

In conclusion, the public welcomed the Bill and applauded it as a positive step towards the management and administration of deceased estates. They submitted as well as voiced out their opinions and hoped these observations will assist the Parliament in its assessment of the Bill. The observations which were met are summarised in this Report.  I thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.

The people’s views on the Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [Committee Report]

The people’s views on the Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [Committee Report]